Stuck in the model trap: the effects of beautiful models in ads on female pre-adolescents and adolescents. Mary C. Martin and James W. Gentry.
Journal of Advertising v26.n2 (Summer 1997): pp19(15).
A growing concern in our society is the plight of female pre-adolescents and adolescents as they grow up facing many obstacles, including receiving less attention than boys in the classroom, unrealistic expectations of what they can and cannot do, decreasing self-esteem, and being judged by their physical appearance. In particular, girls are generally preoccupied with attempting to become beautiful. As Perry (1992) suggests, "Today's specifications call for blonde and thin - no easy task, since most girls get bigger during adolescence. Many become anorexics or bulimics; a few rich ones get liposuction. We make their focus pleasing other people and physical beauty." Further, studies show that self-esteem drops to a much greater extent for female than male pre-adolescents and adolescents, with self-perceptions of physical attractiveness contributing to the drop (e.g., Hatter 1993).
Another growing concern in our society is the role of advertising in contributing to those obstacles. For example, advertising has been accused of unintentionally imposing a "sense of inadequacy" on women's self-concepts (Pollay 1986). Studies suggest that advertising and the mass media may play a part in creating and reinforcing a preoccupation with physical attractiveness (Downs and Harrison 1985; Myers and Biocca 1992; Silverstein et al. 1986) and influence consumer perceptions of what constitutes an acceptable level of physical attractiveness (Martin and Kennedy 1993; Peterson 1987; Richins 1991). Further, studies have found that female college students, adolescents, and pre-adolescents compare their physical attractiveness with that of models in ads (Martin and Kennedy 1993, 1994b; Richins 1991) and that female pre-adolescents and adolescents have desires to be models (Martin and Kennedy 1994a). An aspiring young model (Lee 1993, p. 118), for example, describes "the model trap":
Deep down inside, I still want to be a supermodel... As long as they're there, screaming at me from the television, glaring at me from magazines, I'm stuck in the model trap. Hate them first. Then grow to like them. Love them. Emulate them. Die to be them. All the while praying this cycle will come to an end.
Clearly, such findings raise concern about advertising ethics. Jean Kilbourne, for example, addresses how female bodies are depicted in advertising imagery and the potential effects on women's physical and mental health in her videos Still Killing Us Softly and Slim Hopes. The use of highly attractive models in ads as an "ethical issue" received little or no attention in published research from 1987 to 1993 (Hyman, Tansey, and Clark 1994), but the ethics of that practice have begun to be questioned by consumers and advertisers. For example, a consumer movement against advertising has arisen in the United States. The organization Boycott Anorexic Marketing (BAM) is attempting to get consumers to boycott products sold by companies that use extremely thin models in their ads. Such criticisms of advertising are 'much too serious to dismiss cavalierly" (Pollay 1986, p. 31).
Using social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) as a framework, we propose that female pre-adolescents and adolescents compare their physical attractiveness with that of advertising models. As a result, their self-perceptions and self-esteem may be affected. In response to the criticisms, we conducted a study to assess those unintended consequences of advertising. However, unlike previous empirical studies of those effects, ours incorporated the role of a motive for comparison - self-evaluation, self-improvement, or self-enhancement (Wood 1989) - which may help to explain the inconsistent findings in the advertising/marketing and psychology literature. Specifically, our premise was that changes in self-perceptions and/or self-esteem may be influenced by the type of motive operating at the time of comparison.
Physical Attractiveness and Self-Esteem in Children and Adolescents
Cultural norms in the United States dictate the importance of being physically attractive, especially of being thin. The emphasis on being physically attractive begins in infancy (Langlois et al. 1987) and continues throughout childhood and adolescence (Collins 1991; Dion 1973; Langlois and Stephan 1981). How physically attractive a child or adolescent perceives him/herself to be heavily influences his/her self-esteem, particularly beginning in fifth grade (Krantz, Friedberg, and Andrews 1985). However, the effect of self-perceptions of physical attractiveness on self-esteem differs between girls and boys. For example, Hatter (1993), in a cross-sectional study of third through eleventh graders, found that self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and levels of global self-esteem appeared to decline systematically over time in girls but not for boys. Other researchers have documented such decreases throughout adolescence for girls (Block and Robins 1993; Simmons and Blyth 1987; Simmons, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg 1973). Boys' self-esteem, in contrast, tends to increase from early through late adolescence (Block and Robins 1993; Harter 1993).
The nature of physical attractiveness differs for male and female children and adolescents as well. Girls tend to view their bodies as "objects," and their physical beauty determines how they and others judge their overall value. Boys tend to view their bodies as "process," and power and function are more important criteria for evaluating their physical self (Franzoi 1995). For example, Lerner, Orlos, and Knapp (1976) found that female adolescents" self-concepts derived primarily from body attractiveness whereas male adolescents' self-concepts were related more strongly to perceptions of physical instrumental effectiveness. The difference in body orientation results in girls paying attention to individual body parts and boys having a holistic body perspective (Brown, Cash, and Mikulka 1990; Cash, Winstead, and Janda 1986; Franzoi, Kessenich, and Sugrue 1989; Franzoi and Shields 1984). Because the ideal of attractiveness for girls is more culturally salient (Franzoi 1995; Rozin and Fallon 1988), girls have a greater likelihood of being negatively affected by the feminine ideal than boys have of being negatively affected by the masculine ideal (Franzoi 1995).
Advertising and Social Comparison
Television commercials and magazine advertisements that contribute to the "body-as-object" focus for female pre-adolescents and adolescents, using difficult-to-attain standards of physical attractiveness to market products, are pervasive (e.g., Adams and Crossman 1978; Garner et al. 1980; Stephens, Hill, and Hanson 1994). For example, in an analysis of Seventeen, a magazine with "the potential to influence a substantial proportion of the adolescent female population" (Guillen and Barr 1994, p. 465), Guillen and Barr (1994) found that models' body shapes were less curvaceous than those in magazines for adult women and that the hip/waist ratio decreased from 1970 to 1990, meaning that models' bodies had become thinner over time. In addition, nearly half of the space of the most popular magazines for adolescent girls is devoted to advertisements (Evans et al. 1991).
Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) holds that people have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities, which can be satisfied by "social"' comparisons with other people. With that theory as a framework, recent studies have found that female college students and female pre-adolescents and adolescents do compare their physical attractiveness with that of models in ads (Martin and Kennedy 1993, 1994b; Richins 1991). In turn, those comparisons may result in changes in self-perceptions of physical attractiveness (Martin and Kennedy 1993; Richins 1991) or self-perceptions of body image (Hamilton and Waller 1993; Myers and Biocca 1992). Given the importance of self-perceptions of physical attractiveness in influencing female self-esteem (Harter 1986, 1993; Rosenberg 1986), the comparisons may result in changes in self-esteem as well.
Research assessing the effects of comparisons with others, including highly attractive others such as advertising models, has produced inconsistent results. For example, Cash, Cash, and Butters (1983) found that when female college students viewed photos of other women, their self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were lowered, but were lowest for subjects exposed to moderately attractive models versus subjects exposed to unattractive women or to professionally attractive models. Thornton and Moore (1993) found both positive and negative effects of comparisons. Self-ratings of attractiveness by men and women exposed to highly attractive same-sex stimulus persons were lower than those of men and women not so exposed, but were enhanced by exposure to unattractive stimulus persons. Stice and Shaw (1994) found that exposure to ultra-thin models in advertisements and magazine pictures produced depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity, and body dissatisfaction in female college students.
Using social comparison theory as a basis, Richins (1991) found no support for the hypothesis that exposure to advertising with highly attractive models would temporarily lower female college students' self-perceptions of physical attractiveness. "By late adolescence, however, the sight of extremely attractive models is 'old news' and unlikely to provide new information that might influence self-perception" (Richins 1991, p. 74). Martin and Kennedy (1993) assessed the effects of highly attractive models in ads on female pre-adolescents and adolescents but found no support for a lowering of self-perceptions. Relying on Festinger's (1954) original conception of the theory, those researchers did not account for motive, and appear to have assumed that the motive for comparison was self-evaluation (i.e., girls compare themselves with models in ads to evaluate their own level of physical attractiveness). However, more recent research has shown that social comparisons may occur for other reasons (Wood 1989), suggesting that female pre-adolescents and adolescents may compare themselves to models in ads for any one (or a combination) of three motives: self-evaluation, self-improvement, or self-enhancement (Gentry, Martin, and Kennedy 1996; Martin 1995; Martin and Kennedy 1994a). For example, Martin and Kennedy (1994a) found that self-evaluation and self-improvement are common motives when female pre-adolescents and adolescents compare themselves with models in ads. Self-enhancement, in contrast, is not common and does not seem to occur naturally. Similarly, in a series of pretests reported by Martin (1995), self-evaluation and self-improvement were found to be common motives in college students, but self-enhancement was not. Gentry, Martin, and Kennedy (1996), however, found stronger support for self-enhancement in a study using in-depth interviews of first and fifth graders. As girls mature, their motives for comparison apparently vary.
The incorporation of motive may help to clarify the inconsistent findings in the literature (Cash, Cash, and Butters 1983; Martin and Kennedy 1993; Richins 1991; Stice and Shaw 1994; Thornton and Moore 1993). Our subsequent discussion explores possible differential effects of comparisons with advertising models on female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem, depending on whether self-evaluation, self-enhancement, or self-improvement is the primary motive at the time of comparison. We do not examine what motives are occurring naturally, but rather how advertising affects girls when they have a particular motive. Our overriding research question is whether motives make a difference in terms of self-perceptions and self-esteem. Finding differences between motives would clearly encourage consumer educators to stress one motive for social comparison over another. Our hypotheses specify the direction of change for each motive, thus implying response differences between subjects who have a particular comparison motive and subjects in a control group. Finding differences between motives would answer our research question even though differences between a motive group and the control group may not be significant.
Self-Evaluation as a Motive for Comparison
As the motive for comparison, Festinger (1954) originally proposed self-evaluation, the judgment of value, worth, or appropriateness of one's abilities, opinions, and personal traits. Information obtained from social comparison is not used for self-evaluation until the age of seven or eight, even though social comparison has been found to occur in children of preschool age (Ruble 1983). In the context of advertising, given that advertising models represent an ideal image of beauty, we expect comparison to be generally upward. That is, female pre-adolescents and adolescents will generally consider advertising models to be superior in terms of physical attractiveness. Therefore, if self-evaluation is the primary motive at the time of comparison (a girl is attempting to judge the value or worth of her own physical attractiveness or body image against that of advertising models), comparisons are likely to result in lowered self-perceptions and lowered self-esteem:
H1: When self-evaluation is the primary motive for comparison, comparisons with models in ads temporarily lower female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem.
Self-Improvement as a Motive for Comparison
Self-improvement is defined as an individual's attempt to learn how to improve or to be inspired to improve a particular attribute. Evidence suggests that self-improvement prompts upward comparisons with others. Feldman and Ruble (1977), for example, found that young children compare themselves with other children to learn how to perform tasks. However, self-improvement as a motive for comparison "may be demoralizing, because one is forced to face one's own inferiority" (Wood 1989, p. 239), depending on whether an upward comparison is perceived as threatening or inspiring. If the target of comparison is perceived as a noncompetitor, an upward comparison is considered inspiring, rather than threatening. For example, a junior tennis professional making upward comparisons with Steffi Graf is likely to be inspired by her as opposed to perceiving her as a threat. However, comparison with a fellow junior player is likely to be threatening (Wood 1989). Thus, under competitive conditions, upward comparisons are perceived as threatening and tend to be avoided (Dakin and Arrowood 1981; Knippenberg, Wilke, and de Vries 1981; Miller and Suls 1977). An advertising model is most likely to be perceived as a noncompetitor.
The findings of Myers and Biocca (1992) are consistent with those suggested by social comparison theory when self-improvement is the motive for comparison. After female college students viewed "ideal-body commercials," they felt thinner than they "normally" do: "The young women may have imagined themselves in the ideal body presented by the advertising. They may have bought the ideal female body sold by the advertising" (Myers and Biocca 1992, p. 127). Therefore, when self-improvement is the primary motive for comparison, self-perceptions of physical attractiveness should temporarily rise in anticipation of an improvement because the comparisons with advertising models are inspiring rather than threatening. When a girl is inspired to improve her physical attractiveness, feelings of self-esteem are likely to be enhanced as well in anticipation of an improvement.
H2: When self-improvement is the primary motive for comparison, comparisons with models in ads temporarily raise female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem.
Self-Enhancement as a Motive for Comparison.
Self-enhancement is defined as an individual's biased attempt to maintain positive views of him/herself to protect or enhance self-esteem. Self-enhancement is most likely when downward comparisons are made (i.e., comparisons with others who are inferior on the trait being compared), because such comparisons are most useful in making one feel better about oneself or one's circumstances (Wood and Taylor 1991).
Self-enhancement can occur through upward comparisons when similarity on "surrounding" dimensions is perceived (Wood 1989). However, upward comparisons with models in ads by female pre-adolescents and adolescents are not likely to be self-enhancing because little similarity would be perceived on surrounding dimensions, such as age (i.e., most models appear to be in their twenties) or context (e.g., the model is not a schoolmate). Hence, when self-enhancement predominates as the motive for comparison, female pre-adolescents and adolescents are likely to avoid upward comparisons with advertising models in an attempt to protect self-esteem. Martin and Kennedy (1994a) did not find evidence of self-enhancement through downward comparisons when female pre-adolescents and adolescents compared themselves with models in ads, but they did find evidence of respondents' ability to discount the beauty of models in ads. For example, an eighth grader wrote, in response to a projective test, "Well, Susie is comparing herself to this model. She is wishing she could look this way. She is looking at every feature of her. She is thinking Row could I ever look that beautiful?' It's impossible. So she just turns the page and forgets about what she saw." Similarly, Gentry et al. (1996) cite several examples of children who discounted the beauty of the models, including a fifth grader who said, "The model has to go on a crash diet and get new clothes and change hair. I wouldn't do that. I want to be myself." Self-esteem is thus protected because discounting the beauty of the model (i.e., realizing that the model's looks may be unrealistic) enables one to avoid a comparison. Because self-esteem is protected, avoidance of comparisons has been categorized as a strategy for self-enhancement by some researchers (e.g., Brickman and Bulman 1977; Wood 1989; Wood and Taylor 1991).
Hence, two strategies for self-enhancement are downward comparisons with models and avoidance of comparisons with models by discounting their beauty. When self-enhancement occurs through downward comparisons with models, self-perceptions and self-esteem are expected to improve temporarily (i.e., be "enhanced").
H3a: When self-enhancement through downward comparisons is the primary motive for comparison, comparisons with models in ads temporarily raise female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem.
In contrast, when self-enhancement occurs through avoidance of comparisons by discounting the beauty of models, self-perceptions and self-esteem are expected to be unaffected (i.e., be "protected").
H3b: When self-enhancement by discounting the beauty of models is the primary motive for comparison, comparisons with models in ads do not affect female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem.
Method
Overview of the Experiment
To test the proposed temporary effects, we used a mixed-model 5 x 3 between-subjects design. The first factor was motive manipulated, by inducing (1) a self-evaluation motive, (2) a self-improvement motive, (3) a self-enhancement motive through a downward comparison, (4) a self-enhancement motive through discounting the beauty of the models, or (5) none of the general motives (i.e., a control group saw ads with no models). The second factor was grade (fourth, sixth, or eighth grade), a categorical independent variable.
In a study to "learn about how people respond to advertising," subjects were exposed to three ads for adornment products. First, subjects completed measurement scales for variables to be used as covariates. After manipulation of motive and exposure to a set of ads, participants gave ratings of self-perceptions of physical attractiveness, self-perceptions of body image, and self-esteem.
Subjects
Female pre-adolescents and adolescents in grades four (n = 82; mean age = 9.8 years), six (n = 103; mean age = 11.9 years), and eight (n = 83; mean age = 13.8 years) from a public school system in the Midwest participated in the study (total sample size 268). The public school system is in a county where 98% of the population is white and the median family income is $31,144. Although the sample is not representative of all pre-adolescent and adolescent girls in the United States, it does represent a segment of girls most susceptible to problems linked to physical attractiveness such as eating disorders (Szmukler 1985). As an incentive to participate, the subjects took part in a drawing for two prizes of $50 each. In addition, a $500 donation was made to the public school system.
Fourth, sixth, and eighth graders were chosen for the study because research suggests that the period between the fourth and eighth grades is important in girls' development of positive perceptions of the self. It is a period when female bodies are changing drastically and adult definitions of "beauty" are becoming relevant social norms. We suggest that a girl's transition in this time period is more of a discontinuity than a linear transformation because of the conflicting biological and social processes. For example, Martin and Kennedy (1993) found, in an experiment with fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade girls, that self-perceptions of physical attractiveness decreased as the subjects got older. Fourth graders' self-perceptions were significantly higher than those of eighth graders, but eighth graders' self-perceptions were not significantly different from those of twelfth graders. Other evidence suggests that self-perceptions of physical attractiveness start to become particularly important during fifth grade. For example, Krantz, Friedberg, and Andrews (1985) found a very high correlation between self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem in fifth graders (r = .72). The strength of the relationship in fifth graders more than tripled the variance accounted for at the third-grade level.
Classroom teachers administered the questionnaires to the subjects at the schools during an hour of class time. To separate the measurement of covariates from the manipulation, two separate booklets were used. The first booklet contained the covariate measures. After subjects completed that booklet, they handed it in and were given a second booklet with a set of ads and dependent variable measures. The assignment to treatments was randomized by giving each classroom a random assortment of the five types of questionnaires with ads. Teachers administered the questionnaires to minimize any source effects caused by having an unfamiliar authority figure collect the data. To facilitate understanding, the teachers administered the questionnaires orally by reading each question aloud and allowing appropriate time for the subjects to mark their responses.
Advertising Stimuli
Full-color ads were created by cutting and pasting stimuli from magazine ads in Seventeen, Sassy, Teen, and YM. Those magazines were chosen because they are the top four teen magazines in the United States (Donaton 1990) and because they maintain consistency with respect to type of beauty (Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo 1992). The stimuli were cut from original ads in a way that eliminated information about the sources. The ads created were for commonly advertised but fictional brand name adornment products: Satin Colors lipstick, Generation Gap jeans, and Hair in Harmony hair care products. The ads appeared to be professionally prepared, were kept very simple, and were realistic as they included partial- and full-body photos of models extracted from actual hair care, jeans, and lipstick ads.
To ensure that the subjects perceived the models in the ads as highly attractive, means of two items that measured the models' perceived attractiveness were calculated for each of the three ads. On 7-point semantic differential scales, subjects were asked to rate the model in the ad from "very overweight and out of shape, fat" to "very fit and in shape, thin" and "very unattractive, ugly" to "very attractive, beautiful" prior to measurement of the dependent variables. The range of mean responses to those items was 5.1 to 6.4, far above the midpoint value of four. Hence, the subjects perceived the models as highly attractive.
Manipulation of Motives
Motives were manipulated through instructions given prior to exposure to a set of ads, advertising headlines and copy, and a listing exercise. The manipulations were based on the following operational definitions of each motive.
1. Self-evaluation - a girl's explicit comparison of her physical attractiveness with that of models in ads to determine whether she is as pretty as or prettier than the models on specific dimensions such as hair, eyes, and body.
2. Self-improvement - a girl's explicit comparison of her physical attractiveness with that of models in ads to seek ways of improving her own attractiveness on specific dimensions such as hairstyle and makeup.
3. Self-enhancement 1 - a girl's explicit comparison of her physical attractiveness with that of models in ads in an attempt to enhance her self-esteem by finding ways in which she is prettier than the model on specific dimensions (inducement of a downward comparison).
4. Self-enhancement 2 - a girl's discounting of the beauty of models in ads and, in turn, the avoidance of an explicit comparison of her own physical attractiveness with that of the models in an attempt to protects/maintain her self-esteem.
Prior to exposure to a set of ads, the subjects were given instructions in which they were shown a drawing of "Amy looking at an advertisement in a magazine" and were told a story about Amy comparing herself with a model in an ad for a particular motive. Then the subjects were asked to look at the ads on the following pages and view the ads as Amy had viewed them.
As consistency in ad design across experimental groups was essential, the headline and copy were the only components manipulated in the four sets of ads designed to induce particular motives. Minor deviations from the ad design were necessary for the control group because their ads did not include a model. The instructions, headlines, and copy were developed from "stories" written by female adolescents in projective tests in previous studies (Martin and Kennedy 1994a, b). Headlines and copy for each condition are presented in Table 1.
The subjects also completed a listing exercise after viewing each ad. They looked at each ad and listed specific ways in which the manipulated motive may have occurred. For example, in the self-improvement condition, subjects were asked to look at the model and "list ideas you get on how to improve your looks." The intent of the study was not to measure naturally occurring motives for social comparison, but rather to investigate how the use of various motives changes cognitive and affective reactions to stimuli showing physically attractive models.
If a subject successfully completed the listing exercises, the manipulation was considered successful. One author analyzed the responses to each listing exercise, coding for the subject's success or failure in completing it. Criteria for a successful response were specific references to aspects of physical attractiveness that were compared in the ad and no indication that another motive was present. For example, for a successful manipulation of self-improvement, one respondent listed the following ideas she got from looking at the model in the ad: "Use the product. Get a perm. Wear lots of make-up and have as pretty of a face as she does."
A response failed if it indicated that no motive or another motive was present. The failed responses were discarded, resulting in seven subjects being dropped (three subjects from the self-evaluation condition, one subject from the self-improvement condition, and three subjects from the self-enhancement 2 condition). For example, one subject in the self-evaluation condition was dropped because, when asked to list "ways in which your hair, face, and body look compared to the model's hair, face, and body," she wrote, "She looks different because I am a different person. I don't really compare to her." One subject in the self-improvement condition was dropped because, when asked to "list the ideas you get from the model on how you could improve the way you look," she wrote, "I could never look like her and will not try. I know that she has to be willing to work to look like she does. I don't worry about the way I look, it's just not at all that important to me."
For the final analyses, 51 subjects (19.5%) self-evaluated, 54 subjects (20.7%) self-improved, 51 subjects (19.5%) self-enhanced through downward comparisons, 51 subjects (19.5%) self-enhanced by discounting the beauty of the models, and 54 subjects (20.1 percent) saw ads with no models (no motive for comparison was induced).
Dependent Variables
Self-Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness. A score for self-perceptions of physical attractiveness was derived by summing responses to two 7-point semantic differential scales: "very overweight and out of shape, fat" to "very fit and in shape, thin" and "very unattractive, ugly" to "very attractive, beautiful" (Grubb, Sellers, and Waligroski 1993). The correlation between those items was .59 (p [less than] .01).
Self-Perceptions of Body Image. A pictorial instrument (Collins 1991) was used to assess self-perceptions of body image. Seven figures representing body weight from very thin to obese were shown and subjects were asked to circle a figure in response to the question, "Which picture looks the most like you look?"
State Self-Esteem. Self-esteem is both an enduring, stable component of personality ("trait" self-esteem) and a variable subject to situational influences ("state" self-esteem). Because we needed self-esteem measures specific to the situation of immediate interest (Thornton and Moore 1993), we used the appearance subscale of the state self-esteem scale (Heatherton and Polivy 1991). That instrument is designed to measure momentary changes in self-esteem, and the appearance subscale is most sensitive to manipulations that make physical appearance salient. For example, subjects were asked to respond to "I am pleased with my appearance right now" on a scale from "not at all" to "extremely." Six 5-point items were used; coefficient alpha was .94.
The three dependent variables were significantly and positively correlated: r = .41 (p [less than] .01) for self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and self-perceptions of body image; r = .68 (p [less than] .01) for self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and self-esteem; and r = .36 (p [less than] .01) for self-perceptions of body image and self-esteem.
Covariates
A review of the social comparison literature revealed several variables that have been found to affect the comparison process. It is impossible to manipulate all such constructs, but we attempted to reduce "noise" associated with their effects by measuring them for each subject prior to exposure to a set of ads and using them as covariates in the analyses. Specifically, the following variables were measured: satisfaction with athletic strength/performance in sports (Richards et al. 1990), mood (Brown and Mankowski 1993; Kenrick et al. 1993; Peterson and Sauber 1983), public self-consciousness (Cash, Cash, and Butters 1983; Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss 1975), and self-perceptions of body image (Collins 1991). A covariate was included in the analyses only if it was statistically significant in adjusting a dependent variable (Tabachnick and Fidell 1989, p. 345-346). In addition, prior to the analyses, the test for assumption of homogeneity of slopes was conducted for each covariate. If a covariate did not meet that assumption, it was not included in the analysis. Thus, each covariate was selected on a theoretical basis but was included in the final analyses only if it was statistically significant and met the assumption of homogeneity of slopes. Methodological details about the covariates and other aspects of the experiment are provided by Martin (1995).
Table 2
Effects of Comparison Motive on Self-Perceptions of Physical
Attractiveness(a)
Grade Treatment Motive 4 6 8 means(b)
Self-evaluation 8.7 8.2 8.5 8.5 Self-improvement 10.5 9.5 9.6 9.9(c) Self-enhancement 1 10.6 9.9 9.6 10.0(c) Self-enhancement 2 9.4 9.0 9.7 9.4 None (control group) 9.7 9.0 9.8 9.4(d) Treatment means 9.8 9.1 9.4
a Adjusted means with satisfaction with athletic strength/performance in sports as a covariate. Main effect for motive significant: F4,244 = 2.99, p [less than] .05. Main effect for grade not significant: [F.sub.2,246] = 1.46, p [greater than] .05. Interaction not significant: [F.sub.8,241] = 0.28, p [greater than] .05. Measured on a two-item semantic differential scale with possible range of 1 to 14.
b Treatment means for each motive represent ones that resulted from the one-way analysis of variance (when grade was not included as a factor because of its nonsignificance).
c Significantly different from self-evaluation at p [less than] .01.
d Significantly different from self-evaluation at p [less than] .05.
Results
Analyses of covariance were used to test the three hypotheses. The strictest test of a hypothesis compared the mean responses for a manipulated condition (self-evaluation, self-improvement, self-enhancement through downward comparisons, or self-enhancement by discounting the beauty of the models) with the mean responses of the control group. For example, self-perceptions of subjects who self-evaluated were compared with self-perceptions of subjects who saw ads with no models (and hence did not compare their physical attractiveness with that of the models). Tests were also conducted by comparing the mean response for each manipulated condition with mean responses for the other manipulated conditions. For example, self-perceptions of subjects who self-evaluated were compared with self-perceptions of subjects who self-improved. We thus addressed our overriding research question of whether motives make a difference in terms of self-perceptions and self-esteem.
Temporary Effects on Self-Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness
Satisfaction with athletic strength/performance in sports was included in the analysis as a covariate. The results of the analysis of covariance, including means adjusted for the effects of the covariate, are reported in Table 2. The main effect for motive is significant ([F.sub.4,244] = 2.99, p [less than] .05), but the main effect for grade ([F.sub.2,246] = 1.46, p [greater than] .05) and the interaction ([F.sub.8,241] = 0.28, p [greater than] .05) are not. Subsequent t-tests revealed that self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were lowered after self-evaluation, but were significantly higher after self-improvement and self-enhancement through downward comparisons than they were after self-evaluation. Therefore, H1, H2, and H3 are supported for self-perceptions of physical attractiveness.
Temporary Effects on Self-Perceptions of Body Image
In this analysis, self-perceptions of body image before exposure to the ads served as a covariate. The results of the analysis of covariance, including means adjusted for the effects of the covariate, are reported in Table 3. The main effect for motive is not significant ([F.sub.4,255] = 0.92, p [greater than] .05), nor is the main effect for grade ([F.sub.2,257] = 1.3, p [greater than] .05). However, the motive by grade interaction is significant ([F.sub.8,252] = 2.39, p [less than] .05). We therefore conducted simple main effects tests followed by Tukey simple comparisons to isolate the significant differences in self-perceptions of body image (Keppel 1991, p. 173-174). We found significant differences within sixth graders (using a familywise alpha of .05). Specifically, sixth graders' self-perceptions of body image were significantly lower after self-evaluation than after self-enhancement by discounting the beauty of the models. However, self-perceptions of body image were unchanged in fourth and eighth graders. Therefore, H1 is supported for self-perceptions of body image, but only for sixth graders.
Table 3
Effects of Comparison Motive on Self-Perceptions of Body Image(a)
Grade Treatment Motive 4 6 8 means
Self-evaluation 4.8(c) 4.0(b) 4.0 4.3 Self-improvement 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.3 Self-enhancement 1 4.2 4.1(b) 4.1 4.2 Self-enhancement 2 3.9 5.1(c,d) 4.1 4.4 None (control group) 4.0 4.0(b) 4.0 4.0 Treatment means 4.3 4.3 4.1
a Adjusted means with self-perceptions of body image measured before ad exposure as a covariate. Main effect for motive not significant: [F.sub.4,255] = 0.92, p [greater than] .05. Main effect for grade not significant: [F.sub.2,257] = 1.3, p [greater than] .05. Interaction significant: [F.sub.8,252] = 2.39, p [less than] .05. Measured on a one-item body figure scale with possible range of 1 to 7 where "skinny" is a 7.
b Significantly different from self-enhancement 2 at p [less than] .05.
c Significantly different from eighth graders at p [less than] .05.
d Significantly different from fourth graders at p [less than] .01.
Temporary Effects on Self-Esteem
In this analysis, satisfaction with athletic strength/performance in sports, public self-consciousness, and mood were the covariates. The results of the analysis of covariance, including means adjusted for the effects of the covariates, are reported in Table 4. The main effect for motive is not significant ([F.sub.4,239] = 1.22, p [greater than] .05) nor is the main effect for grade ([F.sub.2,241] = 0.48, p [greater than] .05). However, the motive by grade interaction is significant ([F.sub.8,238] = 2.26, p [less than] .05). We therefore conducted simple main effects tests. Significant main effects were found for fourth graders ([F.sub.4,239] = 3.37, p [less than] .05) and for subjects who self-enhanced by discounting the beauty of the models (self-enhancement 2) ([F.sub.2,241] = 3.66, p [less than] .05). For those significant main effects, we conducted Tukey simple comparisons to isolate the significant differences in self-esteem (using a familywise alpha of .05). In general, self-esteem was unchanged in sixth and eighth graders. Fourth graders' self-esteem was significantly higher after self-enhancement through downward comparisons than after self-enhancement by discounting the beauty of the models. Therefore, H1 and H2 are not supported for self-esteem and H3a is partially supported. In general, the lack of changes in self-perceptions and self-esteem when self-enhancement occurred by discounting the beauty of the models suggests support for H3b. However, because of the lack of predicted effects for the other comparison motives, the support should be regarded as tentative.
Discussion
In general, our results suggest that motives do play an important role in the study context as we found differential effects for changes in self-perceptions of physical attractiveness, self-perceptions of body image, and self-esteem. Consistent with predictions of social comparison theory, female pre-adolescents' and adolescents' self-perceptions and self-esteem can be detrimentally affected, particularly when self-evaluation occurs: self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were lowered in all subjects who self-evaluated, supporting H1. In sixth graders, self-perceptions of body image were lowered (i.e., body was perceived as larger) in subjects who self-evaluated, supporting H1.
Table 4
Effects of Comparison Motive on Self-Esteem(a)
Grade Treatment Motive 4 6 8 means
Self-evaluation 20.5 19.4 18.1 19.3 Self-improvement 20.3 19.1 21.3 20.2 Self-enhancement 1 22.5(b) 21.0 20.0 21.2 Self-enhancement 2 17.0(c) 20.6 21.3 19.6 None (control group) 22.3(b) 19.1 19.4 20.3 Treatment means 20.5 19.8 20.0
a Adjusted means with mood, public self-consciousness, and satisfaction with athletic strength/performance in sports as covariates. Main effect for motive not significant: [F.sub.4,239] = 1.22, p [greater than] .05. Main effect for grade not significant: [F.sub.2,241] = 0.48, p [greater than] .05. Interaction significant: [F.sub.8,236] = 2.26, p [less than] .05. Measured on a six-item semantic differential scale with possible range of 1 to 30.
b Significantly different from self-enhancement 2 at p [less than] .01.
c Significantly different from eighth graders at p [less than] .05.
On a positive note, the inclusion of motives shows that detrimental effects do not always occur. That is, positive temporary effects occur when either self-improvement or self-enhancement is the motive for comparison: self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were raised in subjects who self-improved or self-enhanced through downward comparisons (self-enhancement 1), supporting H2 and H3a. Self-perceptions and self-esteem were unaffected in most cases in subjects who self-enhanced by discounting the beauty of models (self-enhancement 2), supporting H3b. The only exception occurred when sixth graders' self-perceptions of body image were raised (i.e., body was perceived as skinnier).
Our results differ from those of previous studies that did not investigate the role of comparison motives. For example, Cash, Cash, and Butters (1983), Thornton and Moore (1993), and Stice and Shaw (1994) found negative effects on self-perceptions when women were exposed to ads or photographs with highly attractive females. Martin and Kennedy (1993) and Richins (1991), however, found no support for a lowering of self-perceptions of physical attractiveness after exposure to highly attractive models in ads.
Social comparison theory, as it currently stands, cannot explain all of our results. In particular, how the processes may change over the course of one's lifetime is not articulated theoretically or empirically. A closer examination of the results and some speculation may help to explain the inconsistent and contradictory support for the hypotheses. Though no statistically significant differences were detected, the findings for the fourth graders are interesting and offer some food for thought. Their self-evaluations produced the lowest self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and the highest (i.e., most skinny) self-perceptions of body image in comparison with the other motives. Perhaps in childhood girls (like boys) desire to grow up and "get bigger." Hence, if the fourth graders in our study desired to "get bigger," a skinnier body image would actually represent a "lowering" of self-perceptions. In that case, low self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and skinny self-perceptions of body image after self-evaluation would be consistent, supporting the notion that self-evaluation through comparisons with models in ads has detrimental effects on female pre-adolescents and adolescents.
In comparison with the fourth graders, the sixth graders produced somewhat different results. Sixth graders' self-evaluations produced the lowest self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and the lowest (i.e., the least skinny) self-perceptions of body image in comparison with the other motives. For sixth graders, unlike fourth graders, the direction of changes in self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and body image were consistent. Perhaps a transition occurs between the fourth and sixth grade, from "bigger is better" to "skinnier is better."
In self-esteem, only fourth graders were affected after self-enhancement. Self-esteem was raised in fourth graders who self-enhanced through downward comparisons (self-enhancement 1), supporting H3a. However, self-esteem was lowered in fourth graders who self-enhanced by discounting the beauty of the models (self-enhancement 2), contrary to H3b. Martin and Kennedy (1994a) found that fourth graders aspire to be models more than older adolescents, and perhaps fourth graders are discounting their own future when they discount the beauty of models. Further, fourth graders may be young enough not to realize that not all will grow up to be as beautiful as advertising models. The lack of effects of self-enhancement on sixth and eighth graders' self-esteem may be due to their reluctance to accept that they can look better than advertising models (self-enhancement 1) or that they can discount the beauty of models (self-enhancement 2).
Social comparison theory also does not consider why one person may be more inclined to self-evaluate and another may be more inclined to self-improve. Work in that area (e.g., Major, Testa, and Bylsma 1991) has considered the influence of "esteem relevance" and "perceived control" on the social comparison process. The level of perceived control one has over higher physical attractiveness may help explain whether and why consumers tend naturally to have one motive rather than another. Specifically, a feeling that one can control higher appearance is likely to result in self-improvement (i.e., "I can change my appearance, so I should look for ideas as to how to improve it"), whereas a feeling of no control is likely to result in self-evaluation (i.e., "I cannot change my appearance, so I can only determine whether I am as pretty as the model"). In sum, some of the results reported here are consistent with social comparison theory's predictions about the results of comparisons across motives. However, some are not, and further exploration of the theory's suggestions is necessary.
Implications and Directions for Future Research
Our results have implications for advertisers and educators. Educators can use the framework of social comparison theory to instruct children and adolescents about how (i.e., which motive to use) and when (i.e., in what circumstances and with whom) to use others for comparison. With respect to advertising models, children and adolescents may be able to use the processes of self-improvement and self-enhancement to their advantage, as both led to temporary increases in self-perceptions (in comparison with the control group or girls in another manipulated condition). As Martin and Kennedy (1994a) found, however, self-enhancement is not a naturally occurring motive when female pre-adolescents and adolescents compare themselves with models in ads. Hence, the involvement of educators would be crucial. Not only would emphasis on self-enhancement be advantageous in terms of self-perceptions, but advertisers could benefit as well, as research suggests that making consumers feel physically attractive encourages sales of cosmetic and other adornment products (Brown, Cash, and Noles 1986; Theberge and Kernaleguen 1979). That possibility is encouraging, but must be viewed with caution until further research has been conducted. Our results suggest that the relationships between motives and self-perceptions and self-esteem are not straightforward and that there are particular times in childhood and adolescence when efforts to instruct young people in how to view ads may be most appropriate. Simply beginning education at a very early age is not the answer. For example, self-enhancement by discounting the beauty of models essentially did not work for fourth graders, as it caused their self-esteem to decrease. Discounting the beauty of models appears to have led fourth graders to discount their own futures in terms of physical attractiveness. In addition, if fourth graders believe "bigger is better," they may not have enough intellectual maturity to realize that "bigger is better" conflicts with the beauty and slenderness of advertising models.
Sixth and eighth graders, in contrast, may be reluctant to accept the notion of discounting models' beauty, hence the lack of effect on their self-esteem. That reluctance might be due partly to their having developed a more sophisticated level of advertising skepticism, as "adolescents have the confidence to rely on their own judgment and the discernment necessary to separate advertising truth from advertising hype" (Boush, Friestad, and Rose 1994, p. 173). Boush and his coauthors found that self-esteem is related directly to mistrust of advertiser motives and disbelief of advertising claims. Hence, education before sixth grade may be critical to get female pre-adolescents and adolescents to accept the notion of discounting the beauty of advertising models.
The period between the fourth and eighth grades appears to be a critical one on which future research would be beneficial to assess further what role each of the motives has and for what ages. Other issues also warrant attention. For example, in our study, the models in the ads were in their late teens or early adulthood. Future research might address the effects of younger models, as well as more ordinary-looking models, in ads. Another need is to assess whether the type of physical attractiveness is important (Englis, Solomon, and Ashmore 1994; Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo 1992). As Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo (1992) suggest, there is more than one type of beauty, and magazines are generally associated with a particular type (e.g., "cute" is most commonly associated with Seventeen magazine). Further, future research should incorporate the role of "esteem relevance" and "perceived control" to determine whether and to what extent those variables account for natural tendencies to have one motive rather than another. In addition, differential levels of esteem relevance and perceived control may lead to different types and levels of responses (see Major, Testa, and Bylsma 1991; Martin and Gentry 1997). For example, cognitive responses (e.g., self-perceptions) may differ from affective responses (e.g., self-esteem) after comparisons with models in ads, which may help to explain the inconsistent results found here and in similar studies.
Finally, some researchers have acknowledged that the minimal effects or lack of effects found in studies assessing temporary changes in self-perceptions or self-esteem may differ from what may be found in the long term (Cash, Cash, and Butters 1983; Thornton and Moore 1993). Thornton and Moore (1993, p. 480) concluded that "with long-term comparisons such as this, particularly with the pervasive presence of idealized media images in our culture and the continued, and perhaps increasing, emphasis placed on physical appearance, there exists the potential for bringing about more significant and lasting changes in the self-concept." The motive of self-improvement, however, represents a unique situation in that temporary changes may differ from the long-term changes (Martin 1995; Myers and Biocca 1992). When one commonly compares oneself to advertising models for self-improvement, one may eventually realize that the ideal is not as attainable as originally believed. Hence, longitudinal studies assessing the effects of such comparisons are recommended.
Given the criticisms of advertising based on its cultural and social consequences, a better understanding of the role of comparison motives and the other issues mentioned here is needed. Such understanding may lead to a unified effort by educators to help prevent detrimental effects on female pre-adolescents and adolescents. However, a unified effort by educators may not be enough, and a call for legislation to control the use of models in advertising may arise in response to consumer movements such as Boycott Anorexic Marketing (BAM). Advertising researchers must respond with studies to determine more clearly the unintended consequences of advertising.
The authors are grateful to Dale and Jan Johansen for their dedication, support, and assistance. They thank Dr. Will Roth and the faculty and staff of U.S.D. 489 in Hays, Kansas, for their cooperation and assistance throughout the project and four anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Adams, G.R. and S.M. Crossman (1978), Physical Attractiveness: A Cultural Perspective, New York: Libra.
Block, Jack and Richard W. Robins (1993), "A Longitudinal Study of Consistency and Change in Self-Esteem from Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood," Child Development, 64 (June), 909-923.
Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994), 'Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 165-175.
Brickman, Philip and Ronnie J. Bulman (1977), "Pleasure and Pain in Social Comparison," in Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, J.M. Suls and R.L. Miller, eds., Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 149-186.
Brown, Jonathon D. and Tracie A. Mankowski (1993), "Self-Esteem, Mood, and Self-Evaluation: Changes in Mood and the Way You See You," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (3), 421-430.
Brown, Timothy A., Thomas F. Cash, and P.J. Mikulka (1990), "Attitudinal Body-Image Assessment: Factor Analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire," Journal of Personality Assessment, 55 (Fall), 135-144.
-----, -----, and Steven W. Noles (1986), "Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness Among College Students: Selected Determinants and Methodological Matters," Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (3), 305-316.
Cash, Thomas F., Diane Walker Cash, and Jonathan W. Butters (1983), "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall...?: Contrast Effects and Self-Evaluations of Physical Attractiveness," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9 (September), 351-358.
-----, Barbara A. Winstead, and Louis H. Janda (1986), "The Great American Shape-Up: Body Image Survey Report," Psychology Today, 20 (April), 30-37.
Collins, M. Elizabeth (1991), "Body Figure Perceptions and Preferences Among Pre-adolescent Children," International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10 (2), 199-208.
Dakin, Stephen and A. John Arrowood (1981), "The Social Comparison of Ability," Human Relations, 34 (February), 89-109.
Dion, Karen (1973), "Young Children's Stereotyping of Facial Attractiveness," Developmental Psychology, 9 (2), 183-188.
Donaton, Scott (1990), "Teen Titles Grow Up," Advertising Age (June 11), 41.
Downs, A. Chris and Sheila K. Harrison (1985), "Embarrassing Age Spots or Just Plain Ugly? Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping as an Instrument of Sexism on American Television Commercials," Sex Roles, 13 (1/2), 9-19.
Englis, Basil G., Michael R. Solomon, and Richard D. Ashmore (1994), "Beauty Before the Eyes of Beholders: The Cultural Encoding of Beauty Types in Magazine Advertising and Music Television," Journal of Advertising, 23 (June), 49-64.
Evans, Ellis D., Judith Rutberg, Carmela Sather, and Charli Turner (1991), "Content Analysis of Contemporary Teen Magazines for Adolescent Females," Youth and Society, 23 (September), 99-120.
Feldman, Nina S. and Diane N. Ruble (1977), "Awareness of Social Comparison Interest and Motivations: A Developmental Study," Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (October), 579-585.
Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975), "Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment and Theory," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43 (4), 522-527.
Festinger, Leon (1954), "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes," Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Franzoi, Stephen L. (1995), "The Body-as-Object Versus the Body-as-Process: Gender Differences and Gender Considerations," Sex Roles, 33 (5/6), 417-437.
-----, Jennifer J. Kessenich, and Patricia A. Sugrue (1989), "Gender Differences in the Experience of Body Awareness: An Experiential Sampling Study," Sex Roles, 21 (October), 499-515.
----- and Stephanie A. Shields (1984), "The Body Esteem Scale: Multidimensional Structure and Sex Differences in a College Population," Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (April), 173-178.
Garner, David M., Paul E. Garfinkel, Donald Schwartz, and Michael Thompson (1980), "Cultural Expectations of Thinness in Women," Psychological Reports, 47 (October), 483-491.
Gentry, James W., Mary C. Martin, and Patricia F. Kennedy (1996), "Gender and Age Differences in the Importance of Physical Attractiveness: Advertising Presentations and Motives for Comparison for Pre-Adolescent Children," in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Gender, Marketing, and Consumer Behavior, J.A. Costa, ed., Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Printing Service, 1-15.
Grubb, Henry J., Marie I. Sellers, and Karen Waligroski (1993), "Factors Related to Depression and Eating Disorders: Self-Esteem, Body Image, and Attractiveness," Psychological Reports, 72 (June), 1003-1010.
Guillen, Eileen O. and Susan I. Barr (1994), "Nutrition, Dieting, and Fitness Messages in a Magazine for Adolescent Women, 1970-1990," Journal of Adolescent Health, 15 (September), 464-472.
Hamilton, Kate and Glenn Waller (1993), "Media Influences on Body Size Estimation in Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia: An Experimental Study," working paper, University of Aberdeen.
Harter, Susan (1986), "Processes Underlying the Construction, Maintenance, and Enhancement of the Self-Concept in Children," in Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 3, J. Suls and A.G. Greenwald, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 137-181.
----- (1993), "Visions of Self: Beyond the Me in the Mirror," in Developmental Perspectives on Motivation, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 40, J.E. Jacobs, ed., Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 99-144.
Heatherton, Todd F. and Janet Polivy (1991), "Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (6), 895-910.
Hyman, Michael R., Richard Tansey, and James W. Clark (1994), "Research on Advertising Ethics: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Advertising, 23 (September), 5-15.
Kenrick, Douglas T., Daniel R. Montello, Sara E. Gutierres, and Melanie R. Trost (1993), "Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Affect and Perceptual Judgments: When Social Comparison Overrides Social Reinforcement," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (April), 195-199.
Keppel, Geoffrey (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Knippenberg, A. van, H. Wilke, and N.K. de Vries (1981), "Social Comparison on Two Dimensions," European Journal of Social Psychology, 11 (July-September), 267-283.
Krantz, Murray, Jackie Friedberg, and David Andrews (1985), "Physical Attractiveness and Popularity: The Mediating Role of Self-Perception," The Journal of Psychology, 119 (3), 219-223.
Langlois, Judith H., Lori A. Roggman, Rita J. Casey, Jean M. Ritter, Loretta A. Rieser-Danner, and Vivian Y. Jenkins (1987), "Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces: Rudiments of a Stereotype?" Developmental Psychology, 23 (3), 363-369.
----- and Cookie White Stephan (1981), "Beauty and the Beast: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in the Development of Peer Relations and Social Behavior," in Developmental Social Psychology: Theory and Research, S.S. Brehm, S.M. Kassin, and F.X. Gibbons, eds., New York: Oxford University Press, 152-168.
Lee, Robinne (1993), "The Model Thing," tell (Fall), 62, 188.
Lerner, Richard M., James B. Orlos, and John R. Knapp (1976), "Physical Attractiveness, Physical Effectiveness, and Self-Concept in Late Adolescents," Adolescence, 11 (43), 313-326.
Major, Brenda, Maria Testa, and Wayne H. Bylsma (1991), "Responses to Upward and Downward Social Comparisons: The Impact of Esteem-Relevance and Perceived Control," in Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, J. Suls and T.A. Wills, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 237-260.
Martin, Mary C. (1995), "The Influence of the Beauty of Advertising Models on Female Pre-Adolescent and Adolescent Self-Perceptions, Self-Esteem, and Brand Intentions: A Longitudinal Study," unpublished dissertation, Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
----- and James W. Gentry (1997), "The Role of Esteem-Relevance and Perceived Control in Determining the Effects of Physically Attractive Models in Advertising on Female and Male Adolescents," in European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. III, forthcoming.
----- and Patricia F. Kennedy (1993), "Advertising and Social Comparison: Consequences for Female Pre-Adolescents and Adolescents," Psychology and Marketing, 10 (November/December), 513-530.
----- and ----- (1994a), "Social Comparison and the Beauty of Advertising Models: The Role of Motives for Comparison," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, C.T. Allen and D. Roedder John, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 365-371.
----- and ----- (1994b), "The Measurement of Social Comparison to Advertising Models: A Gender Gap Revealed," in Gender and Consumer Behavior, J.A. Costa, ed., Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 104-124.
Miller, Richard L. and Jerry M. Suls (1977), "Affiliation Preferences as a Function of Attitude and Ability Similarity," in Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, J.M. Suls and R.L. Miller, eds., Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 103-123.
Myers, Philip N. and Frank A. Biocca (1992), "The Elastic Body Image: The Effect of Television Advertising and Programming on Body Image Distortions in Young Women," Journal of Communication, 42 (Summer), 108-133.
Perry, Nancy J. (1992), "Why It's So Tough To Be a Girl," Fortune (August 10), 82-84.
Peterson, Robert A. and Matthew Sauber (1983), "A Mood Scale for Survey Research," in AMA Educators' Proceedings, P. Murphy et al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 409-414.
Peterson, Robin T. (1987), "Bulimia and Anorexia in an Advertising Context," Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 495-504.
Pollay, Richard W. (1986), "The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended Consequences of Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 50 (April), 18-36.
Richards, Maryse H., Andrew M. Boxer, Anne C. Petersen, and Rachel Albrecht (1990), "Relation of Weight to Body Image in Pubertal Girls and Boys From Two Communities," Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 313-321.
Richins, Marsha L. (1991), "Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71-83.
Rosenberg, Morris (1986), "Self-Concept From Middle Childhood Through Adolescence," in Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 3, J. Suls and A.G. Greenwald, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 107-136.
Rozin, Paul and April E. Fallon (1988), "Body Image, Attitudes to Weight and Misperceptions of Figure Preferences of the Opposite Sex: A Comparison of Men and Women in Two Generations," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 (August), 342-345.
Ruble, Diane N. (1983), "The Development of Social-Comparison Processes and Their Role in Achievement-Related Self-Socialization," in Social Cognition and Social Development: A Socio-cultural Perspective, E.T. Higgins, D.N. Ruble, and W.W. Hartup, eds., Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 134-157.
Silverstein, Brett, Lauren Perdue, Barbara Peterson, and Eileen Kelly (1986), "The Role of the Mass Media in Promoting a Thin Standard of Bodily Attractiveness for Women," Sex Roles, 14 (9/10), 519-532.
Simmons, Roberta G. and Dale A. Blyth (1987), Moving Into Adolescence: The Impact of Pubertal Change and School Context, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
-----, Florence Rosenberg, and Morris Rosenberg (1973), "Disturbance in the Self-Image at Adolescence," American Sociological Review, 38 (October), 553-568.
Solomon, Michael R., Richard D. Ashmore, and Laura C. Longo (1992), "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 21 (December), 23-34.
Stephens, Debra Lynn, Ronald Paul Hill, and Cynthia Hanson (1994), "The Beauty Myth and Female Consumers: The Controversial Role of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28 (1), 137-153.
Stice, Eric and Heather E. Shaw (1994), "Adverse Effects of the Media Portrayed Thin-Ideal on Women and Linkages to Bulimic Symptomatology," Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13 (3), 288-308.
Szmukler, George I. (1985), "The Epidemiology of Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia," Journal of Psychiatric Research, 19 (2-3), 143-153.
Tabachnick, Barbara G. and Linda S. Fidell (1989), Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd ed., New York: HarperCollins.
Theberge, Lorraine and Anne Kernaleguen (1979), "Importance of Cosmetics Related to Aspects of the Self," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48 (June), 827-830.
Thornton, Bill and Scott Moore (1993), "Physical Attractiveness Contrast Effect: Implications for Self-Esteem and Evaluations of the Social Self," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (August), 474-480.
Wood, Joanne V. (1989), "Theory and Research Concerning Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes," Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 231-248.
----- and Kathryn L. Taylor (1991), "Serving Self-Relevant Goals Through Social Comparison," in Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, J. Suls and T.A. Wills, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 23-49.
Mary C. Martin (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, The Belk College of Business Administration, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
James W. Gentry (Ph.D., Indiana University) is Professor, Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.